ML20202E956

Forwards Excerpts from Recent Plant Insp Rept,Which Addresses Part of Area Questioned Re Overtime

ML20202E956
Person / Time
Site:	Wolf Creek
Issue date:	09/04/1997
From:	Johnson W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:	Biamonte A NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
Shared Package
ML20202E915	List: IA-97-480, Forwards Excerpts from Recent Plant Insp Rept,Which Addresses Part of Area Questioned Re Overtime ML20202E907 ML20202E917 ML20202E956
References
FOIA-97-480 NUDOCS 9802190094
Download: ML20202E956 (15)

Text

_ _ - _ _ _ . .

' -e -

'fh 4

f. ; Q

,g; *.

f From: - William Johnson ("A\/ /DAP)..

To --

WND2.WNP5.MAB (rv p,gAh=%k ' tJBF. /Dkt.W / H N6)

Dates :9/4/97 2:42pm subjects. -Wolf Creek overtime

-Attached is an excerpt from a recent Wolf Creek inspection report. This addresses part of the area you questioned. Exempt employees are covered by the-policy, but their OT is not tracked such that one could go back~and review records to see if the policy has been met. The senior resident inspector, Fred Ringwald, noted that the engineering department dees use the overtime-approval forma to authorize exceeding the normal guidelines in rpecific cases.

In fact, he thought thac there are probably more' authorizations for engineers than for craft. However, available data does not support checking to see whether a particular exempt e gloyee worked so much oT that a writtan authorization was required.

Please call me or Fred (316-364-8653)- if you have more questions.

-: QUwN ] b T ,th MJ w N cn-ric h 'W ~ I'4oSD O w ,4) w 4

9002190094 990212 ql PDR FOIA

• ,5v., ,tj00CK97-480 PDR

___ _a

i? ,

j,ay y  :-

, Excerpt from IR 50 482/9710-

. 06.2 Overtime Reauirements

. a. ;lnanection Scone (71707) .

The inspector reviewed the licensee's_use of overtime and compliance with the m

i I

t i

l l

b)  : Observations and Findinas During April 1997, the inspector asked the licensee for tho' data pertinent to

. reviewing the licensee's compliance with Technical Specification overtime requirements. While compiling the data, the licensee noted that there had been-a history of examples where they had not complied with the Technical

.. Specifications requirements. NRC Inspection Report 50-482/94-12, which was

-issued on December 1,1994,Laddressed examples which occurred during the Refueling Outage Vil,; Corrective actions for this violation included asveral.

actions that heightened the awareness of personnel to these requirements.

Since then, one example occurred in 1995 and four examples occurred in 1996.

Nine examples have occurred in 1997. ' The licensee initiated PIRs for each of these occurrences and th6 corrective actions involved procedure revisions, ,

actions to reinforce expectations with workers, and the statement that the '

, .idiscioline policy would be invoked if future examples occurred. PIRs 95-1533

/-

and 96-0286 recognized that previous corrective actions were ineffective and

' -attempted to address the repetitive nature of these occurrences, but failed to prevent the subsequent occurrences.

t

[While these examples of unauthorized overtime use without management

(

approval occurred, the licensee also authorized overtime usage in excess of the

. overtime limits provided in the Technical Specifications a total of 11R timan in 1995, 545 times in 1996, and 101 times during the first 6 months of 1997.

'vynile some of these authorizations were related to piant outages, many of them were not. Technical Specification 6.2.2.f requires the licensee to comply with the guidalines of Generic Letter 82-12 which states that Enough plant operating

i .

j personnel should be employed to maintain adequate shift coverage without routine heavy use of overtime. The objective is to have operating personnel work a normal 8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> day,40-hour week while the plant is operating. However, in the event that unforseen problems require substantial amounts of overtime to be used, or during extended periods of shutdown for refueling, major maintenance, or major plant modifications on a temporary basis, the following guidelines shall be followed: . . . Recognizing that very unusual circumstances may arise requiring deviation from the above guidelines, such deviation shall be authorized by the plant manager or his deputy, or higher levels of management.

The paramount consideration in such authorization shall be that significant reductions in the effectiveness of operating personnel would be highly unlikely.

Given the high number of deviations from the Generic Letter 82-12 guidelines, g the inspector questioned whether aach occurrence represented the . . . very unusual circumstances . . . provided for in the Generic Letter. The Chief Operating Officer acknowledged that the number of authorizations for overtime above the Generic Letter 82-12 guidelines had been excessive and that the numbers would be reduced considerably in the future.

The inspector reviewed the data provided by the licensee and noted that overtime data for verifying that exempt personnel complied with Generic Letter 8212 guidelines was not available. The inspector asked the Chief Administrative Officer how they monitored exempt personnel overtime use to ensure that routine heavy use of overtime did not occur. The Chief Administrative Officer acknowledged such trending information was not available. The only data which was available were the authorization forms for overtime use in excess of the Generic Letter 82-12 guidelines for exem_p.t employees.

The inspector asked if the licensee routinely reviewed the use of overtime to evaluate compliance with the Technical Specification requirement. The Chief Administrative Officer acknowledged that they did not. After recognizing the history of problems in this area, the licensee initiated PIR 97-1303.

Since the licensee failed to monitor and review the use of overtime on a periodic basis, this issue was only identified as a result of NRC inspection in this area.

The licensee's failure to initiate actions to prevent recurrence of unauthorized use of overtime exceeding the Technical Specification requirements, particularly after a previous cited violation and previous significant PIRs, represents a corrective action failure in this area. Since the work activities associated with several of the examples of workers exceeding the Technical Specification overtime requirements involved safety related work, this is a significant condition adverse to quality. The failure of the licensee to take adequate corrective actions to preclude recurrence of these e nts is a violation of 10 CFR Part 50, Criterion XVI (VIO 50-482/9710*

c. . Conclusions l

_ _ _ _ . _ . . - J

y An NRC identified corrective action violation resulted from repeated occurrences of overtime use in excess of the Technical Specification requirements and the failure of the licensee to review and monitor the use of overtime, despite a previously cited violation and significant PIRs in this area.

, , _an a n _. - - - - - - . . - ~ ~ w- -

ww-o ,- -

r

') ,

'l

..l;

. 4 l

' ~ , ,  ;,. c.

FACSINILE COVER LETT.ER l- .

4 WC pesmENT INSPECIDR'S'OFFIN * '

9 - d, -

AM/PM Pages Date -

CST -

l (Plus Cover) -

PLEASE DELIVER TO: -

f.

] ' '

gy

, f

~

Q

\ ,,

v

[ ] Bill Johnson. 817 860-8148 ( s /,

[ ]. Denise Frmnan 817 860-8103 .

[ ) David Graves 817 860-8141 L M ,

301 415-3063 ' '

h(1 Jhn Stone (MS 13H15)

[] Tom Andrews 817 860-8242

. [ } Dennis Schaefer -

817 860-8192

~

FROM:

~~

I

[ ] ,

Fred Ringwald Senior Residen(Inspector t

[] 'Jennifer Dixon-Herrity Resident Inspector .

% Shirley Allen

, Office ResidenQat**nt '

[] Informaba in this're:ctj ,en ,jge:g

'13C:ctdence with t'l ff 00dm c!Informa!iori Act. em.j ';ns __, _

SUBJECT. F0lA _ : 2 .f/ Q [ ~ ~

MESSAGE: _ i Fax number 316 364-8735 For verification cali 316 364-8653 -" - '

l updated 10/2a/96 i

'e FILED

-3 U.S. DiTRR,T COURT -

Harold A. Houck- 17694 - DIS T"' : e f.H 515 FISHER, CAVANAUGH & SMITH, P.A.'

534 Kames Avenue se i 3 it l'h Tl .

NadaanRank Tower, Suhe 1035 RAL/

H+

Topeka, Kansas 66603 3432 '

gy TEL: 785/354-7622. Ti'i..';i -.iEPuTY

... K S.

' ~

FAX: 785/354 7662 -

E-MAIL: Ashoev@cjnstworks.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINUFFS "* ~

. ,~ k IN THE UNTIED STATES DISTRICT COURT. * -

FOR THE DISTRICTOF KANSAS RAYMOND1 BARTH, TERRY L. BUSSARD, BRIAN L. BUTLER, RANDY BUTZ,

)'

-) -

i DWIGHT CHRISUANSEN, SHAWN D. COMSTOCK, ),

MORGAN FAKHRAI, MARK A. FERREL, )

KENT FULLEN, RICHARD'L. GERDES, )

MICHAEL E. GREER, ALEX L. HAWLEY, )

DAVID A. KRAUSE, DAVID W. KRUSE, )

BRIAN D. MASTERS, R. SCOTTNELSON, ) -

BRIAN PAE, RICHARD A. RAYKIEWICZ, )

RICK RAYMER, BRUCE D. REISCHMANN, )

~

RICK L. RIE1MANN, GLEN R. SEIER, )

TTM L. SMITH, JEFF TARR,

) ..-

STAN WAHLMEIER, MICHAEL D. WATSON, )

DAVID P. WILTSE, and DANIEL J. WOMELSDORF, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

vs.

) CASE NO.

~~

N

)

WOLF CREEKNUCLEAR OPERATING )

CORPORATION, a Kansas Corporation, .

)

)

Defandant

)

i CO MPL AINT . .

COME NOW the Plaintiffs on behalf of themsel'ves, and other ernployees similarly situated, and for their cause of action against. Defendant, allege and state as follows:

.-_a

NOVP/T T*/P.F Uw ~ Y1ra9,JT TW W4N ITacevGTN '

a i us sr " r ,w I. NATURE OF TIIE C W

!. Plaintiffs are 28 employees of the Defei "olf Creek NuclearOperating Corporadon (hereinaher referred to as " Wolf Creek"). Plaintifts bnng this cause of action against the Defendant on behalf of diemselves, and on behalf of other employees similarly situated, to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attamey's fees, and costs un$er the provisions

. ,6.

of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended (29 U.S.C. ( 201, et seg.) BugliiiaRer referred -

to as "the Act".

i

2. riaintiffs, and others similarly situated l have worked in excess of 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> per week during the last three years without being compensated by Defendant at the rate of one and

one half times their regular pay rate for those hours worked lin excess of 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> per week, as required by the Act.

3. Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, have requested and demanded Defendant pay them the overtime compensation to which th'ey are due. Upon such r, quest and.

demand. Defendant has refused and is continuing to refuse t pay such overtime compensation.

II. JURIEDICTION AND VINUE

4. Jurisdiction of this acdon is conferred da this Court by Section 16(b) of the Act, (29 U.S.C._ f 216(b)) and by the provisions of 22 U.S.C. f,1331, relating to laws of the United

-States.

5. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. f 1391(b) as Defendant .

Wolf Creek's facility is located in this district. I 2

.. a

_ - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - ~,-. -.- - ----= ~ - - - - - ~

" " '*~ '

HL PARTIES 6.

Plaintiffs are 28 individuals who are employed by the Defen5nt Wolf Creek. '

The Plaintiffs reside in various counties in the State of Kansds. 'Ihe names and '

Plaintiffs are as follows: -

Raymond E. Barth '* '

, /4% a^~.Cocie.4

. Terry L. TYh 58 d*IA I A-ah ts do Brian L. Butler '

Randy Butz '

innsen -

Shawn D. Comstock Morgan Fakhrai Mark A. Ferrel Kent Fullen 3

_ m,,,n. ,---,g---x-e,ww m ,a,, , ,a , , , , , , . . ; .,

s

~

- . v-David A.Krause .

~

- ~

l . . .

David W. Kruse '

t 8

e .

Brian Pae .

Richard A. Kr4:iewicz i 9

4

t Rick L. Pk a e-Glen R. Seier i -

g . .a , _. .

s e w .

, Jeff '

M, -

Stan Wahhn

• 4 Michael D. Wctson -

David P. Wiltse --

Daniel J. Womelsdorf 7.

Plaintiffs have each signed consent forbs, which signify their consent to Panicipate as named Plaintiffs ic this action. nese consents Sled simule wie se 61ing of this Complaint. Copies of such consents are attached hereto'as Exhibit "A".

i s

5 l

8. Defendant Wolf Creek is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Kansas, having its principal office and place of bush.ess in Burlington, Kansas -

66839-0411. Defendant's mailing address is P.O. Box 411, Burlington, Kansas 66839-0411.

9. Service of process may be made upon the Defendant by serving its resident agent, Warren B. Wood, at Wolf Creek Generating Station, Burlington, Kansas 46839.

, 10. At all times pertinent herein, Defendant Wolf Cieck emp! PIaintiffs and others similarly situated.

I 1. At all times pertinent herein, the business activities of Defendant were related to and performed through unified operation and common control for a common business purpose and constituted an " enterprise' within the meaning of Section 3(r) of the Act (29 U.S.C. i 203(r)).

12.

At all times pertinent herein, Defendaht's employees have engaged in the activities of the enterprise, which include the production and generation of nuclear power and electricity. Such nuclear power and electricity is thereafter sold through tt: channels ofinterstate, commerce. Furthennore, Defendant aad its employees, in producing such nuclear power and electricity, regularly use raw materials which have been shipped in from other states through channels ofinterstate commerce. Furthenuore, Defendant is an enterprise whose annual gross volume of sales is not less than $500,000.00 per year. Therefore, Defendant is an " enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce" within the meaning of Section 3(s) of the Act(29 U.S.C. i 203(s)).

6 i

___.w

.~ . .

4 . :

IV. CAUSE OF ACTION .

13. , Plaintiffs, and others shilarly situated, hereby incorporate by reference all the allegations heretofore contained in their Complaint as though the same were fully set forth berein.

14.

During all times pertinent herein, Defendant-Wolf Cre@loyed the Plaintiffs, and others sh., ilarly situated, as engineers at the rinclear power plant. 'i5e 28 nam Plaintiffs, and others imanned vto are similarly situated, are employed as engineers in two separate categories: support engineers and system engineers,

15. The duties of Plaintiffs, and others similarly sitanted,'do not include the supervision of other employees, or the consistent use of professional discretion andjudpnent, even though the position title.is'that of engineer.

16.

Many Plaintiffs, and others similarly sifuated, have received undergraduate..

or graduate degrees at four-year accredited colleges; however, an undergraduate or graduate degree is not required to perform the duties which these Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, perform.

17.

Several Plaintiffs, and other'similarly situated, have only achieved a high school educatioc, while they are performing the same or similar duties as others who have achieved bachelor's and master's degrees.

18.

Plaintiffs, and others similary situated, do not classify as either executive, mimini*ative, or professional employees under the Act, and are not exempt from the requirements i of the Act.

7

_____ a

ls

• 19.

During all times pertinent herein, PlaintifIs, and others similuly situated, performed duties as en ineers for Defendant Wolf Creek may have worked in excess of 40 h .

1 and Defcndant has failed and efused to compensate Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, for suc l work in excess of 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> per work week at rates not less than one and one half time.: the r rate at which they were compensated, contrary to the provisions of Section 7(a) of the Act (29 U.S

) 207(a)).

I_

20.

Plaintiffs were and still me being dunaged Ic these violation 7of the Act by Defendant.

21.

The sums due'esch Plaintiff for such' overtime compensation cannot be calculated as the records of the number of bours worked by Plaintiffs, and others similarly situ are within the exclusive possession and under the sole custody and control of Defendant Wolf Creek. I iffs, and other similarly situated, will be more able to calculate the sums due them for overtime compensation afler the discovery process has been completed. .

22.

Plaintiffs, and othen similarly situated. hve been expected by Defendant to wear a beeper on their pnson when they me off-duty so that they may be called back into the p if the need arises. Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, are expected tc be on-call approxim seven days out of every six weeks.

I 23.

The Plaintiffs, and ot'iets similarly situated, are required to work on an average of one to three times every time they are on-call.

24.

The amount of time which Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, spend at work once they aged back ranges between ten mbues to twelve hoursD 8

r  ;.

25. Plaintits, and other sist,arly situated, llo distances up to 60 to to miles away 6om the plant, thus being called in erentes a seve inconvenience on their personal life. .

26. Plaintifs, and others similarly situated, are expected to return to the plant within approximately one and ons half hours Aom the time of being called, which, given the distances which tbs plant is toen the Plainriffs homes, is a severe inconvenience gp the_ Plaintifs' .

. Personallives. ,

g

27. Pialadf6 are expected to r:6ain from the use of alcohol dudngh times that they are on call, they are espected to keep their beeper with them as all times so that they may be

~

reached, and they are subject to discir!ine for not returning to work when called.

28. DurNthe time when Plaintifs, and other similarly situaied, are on call, they are not completely relieved from duty, they are not able to use their free time as they so choose, and

~

they are cagaged to wait to return to work. Thus, this time consdtutes hours worked witida the meaning of Sections 6 and 7 of the Act (29 U.S.C. () 206 and 207). ..

29. During such time that Plaintifs, and other similarly situated, are on-call, they are not paid for such time, contrary to the provisions of Section 7 of the Act (29 U.S.C. ( 207).

30. Additionally, since these PlaintiNs, and others similarly situated, are adeclassi6ed as exeenpt ;=&j:::, they are not paid fcr their time when they are actually called ma .

'and when they retum to work. This is a violation of Section 7 of the Act (29 U.S.C. ( 207).

31. Plaindfa have requesred and demanded that Defendant pay Plaindffs, and other similarly situated, one and one-half times their regular wage for every hour worked by PlaiatlKs, and other similarly situated, over 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> a week.

9

_d.

F O '

32.

Uma such request and h, Defendant has refused to pay Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated,4.me and one-half times their regular wage for every hour worked over 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> in a work week.

33.

Plaintiffs have been and are being damaged by this violation of the Act by the Defendant.

...4 -

• 34.

Such refbal by Defendant is not the result of a good faitineliefla its w -

compliance with the Act, and Defendant has no reasonable groemd for belle

'4 it 5: hicomphance with the Act.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, and others similarly , situated pray for an amount equal to one and one half times the re' gular wage paid to Plaintiffs, and others similarlp situated, for every hour worked by Plaintiffs, and other simdarly situated, over 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> per work week for every wo week in the last three years; for compensation in the amount of one and one half times ~the regular

~

wage paid to Plaintiffs for every hour spent on call by Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated; for an additional amount equal to these amounts in liquidated damges as authe:ized by Section 16 (b) of the Act (29 U.S.C.1216 (b)); for attorney's fees as authorized by the Act; for costs; and for such other and further relief as the Cuurt deemsjust. proper and equitable.

FISHER, VANA H SMITH, P.A.

+

By. -

Harol,' * "ou.ck - 17694 534 Kansas Avenue 1035 NationsBank Tower Topeka, KS 66603 3432 TEL: 785/354-7622 FAX: 785/354-7662 un m er=:+1 m no ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 10 i

TOTAL P.11

. o